Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ComradeGnull" data-source="post: 5952796" data-attributes="member: 6685694">&quot;Combat swinginess&quot; to me is one of the fundamental things that needs to be module-able for D&amp;D NeXt to satisfy people.&nbsp; People who invest a ton of time in developing level one characters or who want a run-and-gun style of play don't want to die every time they tear off a hangnail.&nbsp; People who want the 1e style of cautious exploratory play don't want mindlessly charging a pack of orcs to be a valid survival strategy.&nbsp; Some people (myself included) will want a middle ground, where combat has risks but every hit is not a potential kill.The playtest seems to be aiming for that middle ground- HP totals are lower than 4e, but higher than 1/2e.&nbsp; We've been told that damage is going to scale up more at higher levels for everyone- casters and non-casters, PC's and NPC's.Seems then that tweaking starting/per level HP would make more sense as being the 'dial' that can be used to tune combat danger, rather than trying to ad-hoc change elements of combat without knowing how it will affect future damage scaling.You could have:Super dangerous/swingy: Random lvl 1 HD + Con bonusSlightly Swingy: Max HD @ lvl 1 + Con BonusMore Survivable: Con Score + lvl 1 HDSuper Survivable: Con Score + max lvl1 HDThat determines how dangerous combat is at level one, which probably has the most immediate impact on the 'feel' of the game- the survival is success vs. expectation.&nbsp; Scaling- do you gain a maxed die, a random die, a bonus, a fixed number of HP, etc.- can determine whether you preserve that feel at higher level or move into a more or less deadly combat regime as you advance.If you look at 1/2/3/4e, Pathfinder, E6, etc., there have been variant HP starting and development schemes for nearly all of them.&nbsp; Provides a significant change in how dangerous combat is, especially at lower level, without really changing much else about the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ComradeGnull, post: 5952796, member: 6685694"] "Combat swinginess" to me is one of the fundamental things that needs to be module-able for D&D NeXt to satisfy people. People who invest a ton of time in developing level one characters or who want a run-and-gun style of play don't want to die every time they tear off a hangnail. People who want the 1e style of cautious exploratory play don't want mindlessly charging a pack of orcs to be a valid survival strategy. Some people (myself included) will want a middle ground, where combat has risks but every hit is not a potential kill. The playtest seems to be aiming for that middle ground- HP totals are lower than 4e, but higher than 1/2e. We've been told that damage is going to scale up more at higher levels for everyone- casters and non-casters, PC's and NPC's. Seems then that tweaking starting/per level HP would make more sense as being the 'dial' that can be used to tune combat danger, rather than trying to ad-hoc change elements of combat without knowing how it will affect future damage scaling. You could have: Super dangerous/swingy: Random lvl 1 HD + Con bonus Slightly Swingy: Max HD @ lvl 1 + Con Bonus More Survivable: Con Score + lvl 1 HD Super Survivable: Con Score + max lvl1 HD That determines how dangerous combat is at level one, which probably has the most immediate impact on the 'feel' of the game- the survival is success vs. expectation. Scaling- do you gain a maxed die, a random die, a bonus, a fixed number of HP, etc.- can determine whether you preserve that feel at higher level or move into a more or less deadly combat regime as you advance. If you look at 1/2/3/4e, Pathfinder, E6, etc., there have been variant HP starting and development schemes for nearly all of them. Provides a significant change in how dangerous combat is, especially at lower level, without really changing much else about the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification